Vet to US military, all with Oaths: Defend US from domestic terrorism of US ‘leadership’

Air Force veteran Kristen Meghan’s 4-minute video calls on active US military, veterans, and all with Oaths to the US Constitution to honor and enact that Oath: “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Her 2-minute part 2 emphasizes US “leadership” as those responsible for this terrorism. Dr. Martin King also came to this conclusion.

Kristen’s points:

  • US foreign wars are unlawful, and therefore acts of terrorism.
  • US action at Bundy Ranch to take land violates the US Constitution.
  • Both of these unconstitutional acts, foreign and domestic, are based on lies from US “leadership” with apparent age-old motivation to control resources.

Kristen admonishes active military members, veterans, and all Americans with Oaths to defend the US Constitution to take action as they best can, and at least to have the honor to speak the truth.

Let’s look at Kristen’s three points.

Unlawful foreign wars that violate US military, government Oath to the US Constitution:

Current US wars, including any attack on Syria and/or Iran, are Orwellian unlawful because US armed attacks, invasions, and occupations of foreign lands are unlawful Wars of Aggression. Two US treaties, the Kellogg-Briand Pact and UN Charter, make armed attacks on another nation unlawful unless in response to armed attack by that nation’s government. Under Article Six of the US Constitution, a treaty is our “supreme Law of the Land;” meaning that no order can compromise a US active treaty.

Importantly: all “reasons” given for war to Americans, our military, and the world are now disclosed by US official documents as known to be false as they were told.

Current US wars and rhetoric for more wars continue a long history of lie-began US Wars of Aggression since the US invaded Mexico; despite Abraham Lincoln’s powerfully accurate rhetoric of President Polk’s lies to steal half of Mexico at the expense of US military and Mexican civilian lives. The most decorated US Marine general in his day also warned all Americans of this fact of lie-started wars for 1% plunder.

Among the most recent examples of this ongoing history, explore here and here to show US testimony against Syria is unsubstantiated and refuted by the evidence. Both US war history and on-the-ground evidence shows the US is behind chemical warfare murders in Syria as a typical 1% psychopathic false-flag event.

Such lie-began and unlawful US wars have killed ~30 million since WW2, arguably more than Hitler’s Nazis. These ongoing US armed attacks is the very definition of terrorism: unlawful violence for political purpose.

US military “Basic Training” includes instruction to refuse unlawful orders, with officers authorized to arrest those who issue them. The most important unlawful order to recognize is to deploy for OBVIOUS unlawful war.

US action at Bundy Ranch to take land violates the US Constitution:

The US Constitution under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 authorizes federal government to accept with state permission land for military or “other needful buildings.” This part of the Constitution describing Congress’ authority shows no power over land for “tortoise preservation,” or any other reason Princeton Professor Frankfurt’s bestseller academically classifies as “bullsh*t” (further analyses here, here, here, here, here, here).

That said, US federal attorneys have won Supreme Court cases for over 160 years arguing that Article IV allows federal government to claim land despite original intent and language of state governance. The US claims over 80% governance authority within Nevada, and massive claims throughout the US West. But please keep in mind that the US violated its treaty with Mexico to war-steal all of that land; which would seem to make federal claims invalid.

To make an important point regarding those of us with Oaths to the Constitution to honor them: just as US “leaders” argue for more war in a posture to care about dead Syrian children while they allow one million to die horrifically from preventable poverty every month and a total of over 100 million heartlessly poverty-murdered children since 9/11 (twice the number of all American children enrolled in pre-kindergarten to 12th grade), their posture to care for animals should be rejected until current War Criminal “leaders” are arrested and removed from power to cause further harm.

I appreciate Oath Keepers and other patriots with the intellectual integrity and moral courage to act upon “emperor has no clothes” obvious unlawful orders, (Bundy response examples here, here, here), despite the murky legal status and history of the Bundy case.

On-the-ground BLM agents are just “following orders” of US “leadership” (this guy, at the local level). Let’s consider the first level of motivation of US “leaders” ordering BLM agents: theft.

Lies from US “leadership” for apparent motivation to steal resources:

US foreign wars, all began on lies known to be false as they were told, and all not even close to lawful, are centered in oil-rich areas with interest that trade only occur with US currency (paper to brief Congress here, explore titles here for other money/resource interests).

Analyses (here, here, here) of the Bundy land confiscation attempt reveal crony deals with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s son.

The broader context is US “leadership” crimes, lies, and psychopathy to maintain oligarchic control from obvious reforms worth between $60 to $100 trillion to the American public (more than enough to entirely solve 99% of all current economic problems). These are the huge crimes of resource/wealth transfer to the oligarchy of “leaders.”

US “leader” motivation includes assassinating Martin King when he organized a march on Washington, DC until the unlawful wars of his day were ended, and resources directed to benefit the American public (legal verdict of the King Family civil trial).

What Americans can do:

Take Kristen’s message to heart, and do what you can. You can also participate in the 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action (and here) that began on the April 4 anniversary of Martin King’s assassination by the US government (civil court trial verdict), with this operation completing ~July 4 (Martin’ 2-minute plea to you).

Purpose of this operation:

 

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Arnold Lockshin

    Unlawful foreign wars for US imperialism is the name of the game.

    And that which is not done overtly by the Pentagon is done covertly by the CIA. Or, at least the CIA tries.

    Not always successfully. The terrorist war against the Syrian people and government is not going well. Regime change in Ukraine is turning out to be a major set-back.

    But none of this will deter the Bush-Obama “change you are a fool to believe in” administration.

    Arnold Lockshin, political exile from the US living in Moscow

  • http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/ Dredd Blog

    “Aristotle pioneered the use of the term [oligarchy] as a synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy.” – Wikipedia” “oligarchy”

  • Dee

    Couple little details The Property Clause Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 in The Constitution and the Scotus rulings supported by it is the Constitutional authorization for the BLM , not the section on setting up Washington DC you cited. 20 years of Court cases , two court orders all the T’s crossed and I’s doted , full due process is absolutely Constitutional and the court orders were for the cattle , not the land.
    You have factual errors in the story , you certainly cannot find the Constitutional basis for an agency when you look in the wrong section of the Constitution. The guy did not own the land the cattle were grazing on, it was public land and it had a very low , compared to grazing on private land, fee that has been considered a subsidy to ranchers for a long time.
    It is not about a Tortoise . Land can only support so much grazing, cattle and sheep will over graze is they are not tended and destroy the land for future grazing. The grazing leases and fee structure is designed to preserve the land as a grazing resource.. over graze it and there is not enough vegetation to grow back for next years grazing.. this is true for any land public or private used for grazing the grazing capacity of land is measured in AMU due to the fact the land in question is desert the AMU is very low.. that is why the cattle were spread out over several hundred square miles or public land. Bundy’s family did have at one time grazing Rights that were solely based on his family paying the grazing fees and they had up until 1993 they fees are split between the BLM and the State, it is one of the oldest programs on Federal land. Bundy did not own the Land, The People of America owned the land and Bundy broke the contract to use the land and the BLM tried to work with him for 20 years Bundy took his case to several courts over those 20 years and lost in all of them for simple breach of contract.. he didn’t pay his lease to graze on the land. There was no court order to arrest Bundy or enter onto the land he owned and nobody from the Government did. The Court Order was to confiscate the trespassing cows that were on public land and sell them to pay his back Fees for grazing.
    I like this Blog.. but the fact checking on this story was poor and was driven by self serving unsupported claims by Bundy and his supporters, Pretty simple really.. if Bundy thinks he owns the land have him produce a Deed.. the couldn’t in 20 years of making these claims in every court that would listen.. other ranchers graze there as well, they pay their fees , they are not being bothered by anybody. Fact Check Fact Check

    • Carl_Herman

      Jack, Dee, and wunsacon: this story points to a US vet asking military, vets, and all others with Oaths to honor those Oaths. The unlawful and lie-began wars seems to be the easiest to prove in order to initiate arrests of “leaders.”

      The Bundy story requires more research than I will do as a “hobby.” The big questions: given the land in Nevada’s Constitution is stated as belonging to the state, then what is the history of how that land is claimed by the federal government? Bundy claims he would pay the state, so this would require some work to research 20+ years of argument. I would challenge the applicability of Article IV. Making law for federal government is certainly an Article I area for Congress, and I don’t find authority for its intent to leave jurisdiction within states to those states.

      But whatever. The Bundy story might motivate Americans to lawful action more easily than foreign wars, especially when “leaders” on the ground threaten that protesters “better have funeral plans.” The Big Picture has abundant evidence of US “leader” terrorism through Wars of Aggression, the assassination of Martin King, crony deals under blatant financial bankster fraud, and perhaps 100 more areas.

      I like Kristen’s heartfelt plea for millions of Americans to take their Oath honorably and seriously given the extent of US crimes.

      • Dee

        Carl, Google the Article IV Property Clause and BLM .. It is not just my opinion.. the Supreme Court has been addressing these Issues since about 1845 via the Article 4 Property Clause with the most recent applicable ruling in 1976 http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause
        Folks are free to choose any article or section they want in the Constitution and say that that Article or section doesn’t support the Constitutionality of the BLM or Federal lands.. and they will be right.. the section on qualifications to run for President does not support the BLM or Federal lands , or the Article I section folks are citing about forming Washington DC .. it doesn’t support BLM either.. However , in a long line of actual cases with actual Constitutional lawyers actually before the US Supreme Court.. over 150 years of jurisprudence Article 4 section 3 clause 2 keeps being argued and said to apply, simply amazing to me as to how a Article section and clause is so often randomly picked and argued and seen to apply to cases of the same nature. Maybe there is something to it.. it might have been intentional.. maybe something more than throwing darts to pick relevant Constitutional articles and sections is at play here.
        None of this takes away anything from the extra Constitutionally of a lot of Government action.. Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 does not say the behavior of the NSA is unconstitutional for example.. so does that make what the NSA is doing Constitutional? or is there perhaps a more appropriate Article or clause that might say weird random stuff like We should be secure in or persons and papers or that only Congress can declare war.
        I don’t just my opinion but maybe if we took a minute, looked at what Articles and sections SCOTUS has used in the past to determine the Constitutionality or not of various government actions or agencies and tried to apply them .. even if it doesn’t support the hysteria de’jur we could come to better understandings.

        • Carl_Herman

          Thank you, Dee and wunsacon. I altered the article: does it seem to accurately communicate federal government land claims, and in context of the larger picture calling for those with Oaths to honor them?

          • wunsacon

            Hi, Carl. I’m too tired at the moment to do serious reading/thinking and critical analysis. And I spent more time thinking about this one issue (of 400 cattle) than I’d like. But, well, while I disagree with you on this issue, the updated section probably reads better, in that you’re providing links (esp. the one Dee provided) for people to research further.

            Rightly or wrongly, the US federal government conquered lands from Mexico/Spain/France/Britain who conquered it from native Americans. It doesn’t matter that the federal government retains “80%” of some states’ land. There’s nothing significant about the percentage. It doesn’t belong to the inhabitants of those states any more than it does the inhabitants of, say, Rhode Island or Virginia.

          • Dee

            Oops.. when I got the disqus notification of you post I came here to comment but the comments section wouldn’t load and the link to art4 didn’t work.. when I got up this morning things were back to normal but I started posting without the benefit of coffee.. Please see my comment above Thank you for your efforts in the cause of clarity and correctness.
            And Please consider the true import and weight of any Plea to action based on an Oath of Honor where somebody has to put a considerable part of themselves and their life and liberty at stake if they chose the wrong course.

      • wunsacon

        Hi, Carl. I hear what you’re saying. But, I don’t think pro-peace, pro-Constitution, pro-justice, pro-banksta-prosecution activists should or even can “make common cause” with Bundy’s supporters over his case.

  • wunsacon

    In his interview on Hannity, Bundy didn’t provide much justification to explain his trampling property rights and not paying fees. His main argument was “I grow beef for Americans. Keep my input costs low.” Maybe he was not at his best. If the 1993 case was decided unfairly, then he’s probably “beyond frustrated” 20 years later. Still, anyone have some data to throw cold water on the proposition that he’s a scofflaw now playing the “freedom” card as a cynical, selfish ploy or being encouraged by other people to suit their own agenda?

    The main argument I read so far is “the BLM didn’t exist until after Bundy’s ancestors were already grazing cattle there.” This seems misleading/myopic, in at least a couple of ways:
    - The federal government has held large swaths of public land since its inception. The “BLM” is simply one operating unit of many in a long line.
    - If Bundy’s going to make some kind of “ancestral” claim, how did his ancestors get it? Didn’t the US take it from Mexico who took it from native Americans? Aren’t some native Americans still around?
    - Did Bundy’s ancestors hold title or did they just use it gratis or for a fee? The landowner does not have to continue leasing on the same terms.

    Of course the “tortoise” thing is a red herring. Forget it. But, these are taxpayer-held lands. The taxpayer is entitled to lease its property for a price.

    IMO, the fairness or unfairness here depends on the 1993 case. Even *if* that case was decided unfairly against Bundy, he acted irresponsibly afterwards and dug a hole for himself. He should’ve appealed his case but culled his herd or simply paid the grazing fees in the meantime.

    • Dee

      Just a btw.. keep input costs low does not in any way affect free market auction price for beef.. it does affect the difference between production costs and sale price, commonly called profit in the cattle trade. just saying

  • wunsacon

    Carl, I like where your heart is on a lot of things. But, I’m skeptical you’ll be able to appeal to Bundy supporters — who’ve drawn the support of militants — enough to convince them to appreciate your pro-peace arguments.

  • Jack Kelly

    As to your point the Government is “taking land” at Bundy Ranch…..it is GOVERNMENT land and unlike all other users who graze their cattle Bundy has refused to pay the BLM for that use.

    It is NOT Bundy land.

    • GoogIe User

      psyop?

      • Dee

        Nope, just the personal opinion of one rancher of what he wishes was fair , that he could not prove in any court for 20 years of trying, and then taking his personal opinion of the Constitution and fairness to the alternative media.
        There is a rather large Cattle industry , folks who own land for grazing and rent private land for grazing at much higher rates , as well as a several thousand other ranchers that graze on public land .. you do not see them supporting this or supporting Bundy.
        There has been a battle over multiuse public lands for well over 100 years, environmentalists, corporate interests, hikers and campers and motorcycle and 4 wheeler riders and ranchers all with vested interests.. Bundy is putting the Ranchers in a very bad light, especially ranchers that graze on public lands for less than $5 per AMU as compared to grazing fees as high as $20 per AMU in other place on private land..
        The Cattle industry has long complained that the Low BLM grazing fees constitute a government subsidy and direct completion with private land owners and cattle ranchers and provides an unfair advantage .. Bundy’s protest elevates that long term conflict and puts the low fees BLM grazing rights of other ranchers that graze on public land at risk is these days of large deficits and hostility to agriculture subsidies.
        But that is mere details, doesn’t involve any passion and hysteria and after all, there is a plane missing .. so you just get the strum and drang and none of the economic and political issues. There are no geological formations that indicate oil and The AMU is so low that it takes about 72 acres to graze a cow for a year.. and the Biggest Solar farms are only about 2400 acres , which is only enough land to feed about 34 cows .. so you got to go with conspiracy and hype and avoid facts to get that angle dragged in to seduce the press to entice the readers about a cow chewing a cud.
        Slow news day

      • Jack Kelly

        No long established law. HIs neighboring cattlemen pay the users fee why not the Bundy family. The last thing the President needed was a Waco on his hands and he smartly backed off for now.

  • http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/ Big Dan

    And don’t forget these “drills” that are false flags that “officials” do are nothing but TERRORISM, and that is terrorism by our own government against us.

    btw…does anyone think this 16 year old scrawny kid stabbed 24 people including a security guard? IMO that’s not believable. With seniors & juniors around (this kid sound like maybe a sophomore at that age), football players,wrestlers, etc…nobody grabbed a chair in a school and threw it at him? Nobody RAN after he stabbed the first person? Why am I not buying this?

  • Dee

    Carl, thanks for the addition of the Property Clause info.. that helps paint a truer picture I think.

    But let’s talk about the Oath part.. and Mehgan’s plea for a minute. I’m a vet, I took the Oath, I strongly believe in preserving, protecting and defending the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic , so Help me God.

    Now the Question is , what exactly does the Constitution say on the matter? , Or on any matter.. That Oath also includes , well the military one does, and she is speaking to Veterans depending on if you are Officer or Enlisted

    “I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

    “I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

    You can get yourself into a bit of a Pickle.. you Swear to follow lawful Orders and You Swear to abide by the Constitution.. and when those two obligations of Honor are in Conflict, You have to make a Stand.. and when you make that Stand, You get to defend that Stand in a Military Court (or some Court of appropriate jurisdiction ) and well and truly pledge your Life, your Fortune, and your Sacred Honor to your interpretation of the matter at hand , and if you interpretation is correct.. you suffer no penalty and get to be a true Hero. … BUT Your interpretation has got to be spot on legally correct and defensible by SCOTUS rulings and Case Law, Legal Precedents and Superior to the arguments the prosecution of the “rightness” and “legalness” of the Order or Action you defied and didn’t follow or took a Stand against. You got to know your stuff ( civilian term, military term starts with the same letter) .
    Exhortations to Keep Your Oath are a dime a dozen, but no matter how common or easy the plea may be , it is to a serious matter of Honor, and Law. That Oath is Required by the Constitution, It ( and the other versions of the Oath for civilian offices of Trust) is the only Legally required Oath of Allegiance to anything demanded of Americans, and then only when in a Position of Public Trust. You have to be Right when you invoke that Obligation to take a Stand when the alternative is a violation of Law or the other parts of that Oath like following lawful Orders. Not just close, or well intended. but dead nuts on, chapter and verse, with SCOTUS Rulings on your flanks and walking point. So, for any Plea to follow your Oath ( very different than following your bliss) to be worth more than a light breeze on a spring day, it has to be specific and backed by very correct legally sound arguments and documentation, because if you are going to do anything actually meaningful that goes against the officially sanctioned course of action, you will need those arguments in court to show you were, in fact, meeting you Obligation of Honor and not just falling for some off the wall, back pocket personal opinion, of somebody that never read an applicable Supreme Court Ruling on the matter at hand in their life.
    Small quibbling detail, I know, but it seemed worth mentioning.

    • Carl_Herman

      Well said; thank you, Dee. You point to the reason why I offer the US unlawful Wars of Aggression all began with lies known to be false as they were told as the easiest way for those with Oaths to take action.

      You’re right that the Bundy case is not the best leverage point, but hey, we’re just humans with limited ability to advise and predict what other humans will do. This could be a spark with unpredictable and uncontrollable outcomes, for sure.

      It’s a serious move to refuse an order in the military, and to stand for justice within tragic-comic unlawful government. Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin would have been hanged in British courts for treason. Gandhi and King had to violate the laws openly and make their case to the court of public opinion. As I often remind: Martin was assassinated by the US government when his moves for justice became too much of a threat to US unlawful wars.

      I worked with US psychopathic liars for 18 years as they lied and reneged on every promise, public and private, to end poverty, so I’m pretty comfortable in my analysis and ammunition of facts in several areas to document their actions are not even close to lawful, moral, or truthful. I offer my advice of what people can and should do here: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/2014-worldwide-wave-action-activist-advises-3.html

      • Dee

        Carl.. I’m pretty anti war since I got out.. in fact I got out of the military because I sort f had an epiphany. But you simply got to know a few things.. Congress has the power to declare war, fobbed off on to the President thru the war powers act.. period. Nothing nowhere in any law or the Constitution has to say it has to be for a good reason or a true reason.

        As a matter of fact check this out Art1 Section 5 Clause 3 http://www.shmoop.com/constitution/article-1-section-5.html they get to keep secrets. They get to lie. There is no place in the Constitution that says they can’t and in fact it is totally authorized ..

        I want you to think about what I am about to say..

        The Constitution is the list of Rights, Liberties, and Privileges our Founding Father gave up to the Government. in order to form a more perfect union. Yes they also forbade the Government from intruding in many Rights and Liberties.. but that was the whole point of the Constitution , We gave up some to form a government and forbade that government to intrude into others.

        If the President and Congress say we go to war , we go to war.. for any reason, backed by any lie, or reason and it is totally legal , and Congress can cancel any treaty that we may have signed that agrees to any rules of warfare, limitations on weapons, or tactics whatever and it will all be Legal. There is nobody or nothing but the people in the streets to put any limit on the war powers of the government. So stop with the “Illegal war” and the “lies” being something the Government doesn’t have legitimate power to do. It does.

        And Jefferson, Washington, Franklin et al were actually likely to be hung for heresy. The King was the Head of the Church and ruled by Divine Right as well as head of the country.. but what our Founding Fathers challenged was The Divine Status under which he was authorized to rule .. you don’t trifle with the representative of God.. say God gave everybody equal rights and all just power comes from the consent of the Governed.. without perturbing the fundamental ordering mechanism of the Universe.

        I think you are on solid ground with the moral basis for your complaints.. but Lawful and truthful, not so much Article 1 Section 8 enumerated powers

        To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
        Congress can declared war, commission pirates and make any rules they want about capturing people and things .. doesn’t say they need a reason.
        Who did you imagine would have the power or authority to enforce any limits, we are a Sovereign Nation if we win, we are free and clear.

        • Carl_Herman

          We’ll have to disagree on lawful war, Dee. The US prosecuted and hanged Nazis for saying their government had the right to violate the Kellogg-Briand Treaty and say what was and was not “self-defense” apart from objective evidence.

          It’s not just unlawful war, it’s treason to attack US military by lying them into an unlawful war causing them to be under lawful self-defense from the people within the nations US “leaders” lie to invade.

          A treaty cannot be violated under Article 6. The letter and intent of this provision is crystal-clear. I’m confident that honest, factual consideration of Americans non-polluted by official propaganda would conclude with me.

          I read the essay; thank you, it’s strong. We agree that US military, vets, and all those with Oaths must make their own calls about what is right to do.

          • Dee

            Actually , The Allies as a group , not the US alone tried German War Criminals

            They did it under the auspices of the Nuremburg Charter aka The London Charter. .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Charter_of_the_International_Military_Tribunal which was written after the war was over … Which is a precedent that should scare the hell out of anybody with a more conventional sense of Justice.. but OMG they were sooo bad.. had to do something. So a little ex post facto magic and a few bills of attainder, both illegal and unconstitutional under American law and bingo.. Bobs yer’ Uncle .

            Actually this exact problem had come up before.. after the civil war.. Congress made up an Oath for anybody that wanted to hold Office that served in the Government of the Confederacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland
            but I mean ya’ know Confederates were Americans too.. and aside from Andersonville and a few other war crimes they were good guys.. not like German ya’ know wink wink
            pretty flexible system of Justice I would say.

            And the Authority to try German War criminals comes from the Surrender Terms signed at the end of the war. Not from any treaty or international law, other than the Surrender treaty itself.

            The only three possible charges were

            Crimes against Peace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_peace
            War crimes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime
            and
            Crimes against Humanity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

            Crimes against Peace and Crimes Against Humanity were first defined and made crimes under the London Charter which was signed after the war was won.

            Some of the war crimes came from the Hague Conventions, but many were also created after the war was won.

            And that is my point.. the power to say what is and isn’t a crime, or war crime , or legal or illegal war, or act of war, and to try any war criminals is solely the jurisdiction of the Victors and at their discretion.

            As far as treaties go , US Law has 4 different types and levels of “Treaties” all of which are recognized as a Treaty in International law, but only one of which is recognized as an actual Treaty by US law and all of them can be broken or revoked either by mutual agreement or unilaterally.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty and in no case can they override or supersede the US Constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

  • http://www.biggerfatterpolitics.blogspot.com BiggerFatterPolitics

    And the GOP cut VA funding to make Obama look bad. Republicans hate Obama even more than they pretend to love our vets. Republicans blocked several veteran health bills CLICK THIS LINK ——-> http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/27/us-usa-veterans-congress-idUSBREA1Q26O20140227

    Click Here Concerned Veterans for America CEO Pete Hegseth exposed in scandal A former Marine and patriot exposed Chicken Hawk and corporate stooge Hegseth..

  • blizzkreme

    Thanks for sharing. It’s up to us to educate that group of defenders. Great blog post. Just been so busy testing out with Hercules http://bit.ly/1oYNHBA

 

 

Twitter